plugin_enable

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses behavioral implications beyond the annotations: enabling causes Docker to route API calls through the plugin, and timeout_seconds controls the health wait. It does not, however, mention potential side effects such as service disruption or how enabling affects existing plugin state, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed. Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint: false), so the description adds useful context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: a concise opening definition, followed by relevant usage context and configuration advice, then a clear args/returns section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two parameters, an output schema, and annotation context, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters behave, and even covers the related configuration workflow. No critical information seems missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explicitly defining both parameters: 'name - The plugin name to enable' and 'timeout_seconds - Seconds to wait for the plugin to become healthy (0 = no timeout)'. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('an installed plugin'), and explains the functional outcome ('so Docker routes relevant API calls through it'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on enabling a disabled plugin, while siblings handle install, disable, configure, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use: 'a plugin that is currently disabled — either freshly installed or previously disabled via plugin_disable'. It also provides a key prerequisite: if the plugin exposes configuration, call plugin_configure while disabled before enabling. This effectively tells the agent the recommended order of operations relative to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.